Impact of Image-Derived Instrumentation on Total Knee Arthroplasty Revision Rates: An Analysis of 83,823 Procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND

Computer navigation and image-derived instrumentation (IDI) are technology-based methods developed to improve outcomes and potentially reduce revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). IDI refers to the use of manufactured, patient-specific surgical jigs. Conflicting reports exist on IDI-associated improvements in outcomes. The primary aim of the current study was to compare the rates of revision among TKA cases in which components were initially implanted with use of IDI, computer navigation, or neither of these methods ("other" TKA). The secondary aim was to determine whether the outcomes of IDI differed for specific subgroups.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) for the 3 TKA groups: IDI, computer-navigated, and other TKA. The study period was from the first IDI procedure recorded by the AOANJRR (April 2010) to December 31, 2016. The analysis was restricted to primary TKA cases undertaken for osteoarthritis and involving patellar resurfacing and the use of a cross-linked polyethylene insert. Subanalyses were performed to evaluate the effects of age, sex, implantation method, IDI manufacturer, prosthetic design, and prosthesis type on the rates of revision. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship described the time to first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs, Cox proportional hazards models) with adjustment for age and sex were used to compare revision rates.

RESULTS

IDI was used in 5,486 primary TKA procedures. There was no significant difference among the groups in the cumulative percent revision (CPR) at 5 years: 3.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4% to 4.6%) for IDI, 2.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 2.7%) for the computer-navigated group, and 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3% to 2.7%) for other TKA. Posterior-stabilized TKA with use of the IDI method had a significantly higher rate of revision at >3 months (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.02 to 2.04]; p = 0.036), as did IDI TKA in the ≤65-year-old patient cohort (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.10 to 2.09]; p = 0.010), compared with computer-navigated TKA. Patellar revision was significantly more likely in the IDI group.

CONCLUSIONS

IDI TKA demonstrated no overall difference in early to mid-term revision rates compared with standard implantation methods. However, elevated rates of revision were seen with posterior-stabilized TKA, in patients ≤65 years of age, and for patellar revision, meaning that this method should be used with some caution and requires further study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.